bob_barron

Someone said JR was a great great man on the basis of his blogs. I was pointing out that sometimes he's not

cabbageboy truly is a horrible person

I believe he was asked not to be there, and then showed up wearing his cowboy hat and said: Ross said Saturday that drugs shouldn't be the focus. "It's not a steroid issue," Ross said. "It's a domestic issue. There's a lot of other criteria that has to be involved in it. I still can't believe it even happened." He should've just kept his mouth shut

He showed up to the funeral after he was asked not to attend in full JR getup, and then defended WWE outside the funeral

Not Mike fucking Knox!

My guess is one of the Hearthrobs

Which wrestler?

He is? I think his conduct at Nancy Sullivan's funeral would disagree with you.

Reason whatever: If you write a book about a crime, you must give proceeds to the victims

The Digital Short was hilarious. I'll probably watch it today or Wednesday, since really, the episode could've been anything and I would've liked it

I have to rewatch it, since I wasn't really paying attention because nothing else mattered that night because of Memphis. I liked it though. One thing about the Walken shows is that even if some of the skits don't work, I love that everything is different and bizarre. They didn't do one recurring character outside the cold. Chris Parnell and Will Arnett owned Hot Rod. Everyone else....not so much

I disagree on that. I go to the movies for the sake of going to the movies all the time! And 21 was not that good, Nim's Island is a family film starring Jodie Foster and Abigail Breslin

A little bit cocky? Coach Cal is probably the cockiest coach out there.

We'll do our best

SK responds to some factual errors he's made- "Scott- Looking back on some old rants, I was wondering about some different statements you made. I clarified things with Dave Meltzer, and found you were often in error. For example: -You state that Steve Austin was booked to win the WWF title at Final Four but things were changed mid match when Austin got hurt. Meltzer says that the match went as planned and Hart was always booked to win the title. -You say that Ludvig Borga/Lex Luger was the original plan at Wrestlemania 10, only changed when Borga hurt his ankle. While it may have been when Borga first came in, it was soon changed. WWF wouldn't have put Luger clean over Borga at Survivor Series if that was their Wrestlemania main event, so clearly they knew at that point this wasn't going to be the WM10 main event. Also, to counter another common myth, according to Meltzer the whole thing with Luger opening his big mouth and Vince having to change the results of WM10 as a result is a myth and things went down exactly as planned. -You say that the original main event for In Your House #1 was a rematch between Diesel and Shawn Michaels, and it was changed when Sid hurt HBK with his powerbombs on RAW. Meltzer says this is wrong and the plan was always Diesel vs. Sid. -In your Mind Games rant you say: "The finish is then changed on the fly by Vince McMahon, as he relays the instructions to wrap things up to the battered guys...Original booking had Mankind winning the title here, but something happened and it was decided to go with either Vader or Sid instead." Meltzer says that this is false, and that the match went down exactly as planned, even if it could appear otherwise. And you'd think that if what you said was true, Mick Foley would have mentioned it in his book. I think you should clarify on your site that you were wrong on these points, just so these rumors don't continue to perpetuate." I think most of these have already been clarified more than a few times, but hey, we'll hit them again. 1. On the Austin-Hart thing, I had always heard, albeit not from Meltzer but from people who at least would have known pretty well what was going on, that Austin was originally booked as the winner. If Dave says it's not so than I defer to him but I certainly wasn't alone over the years in thinking this one. 2. The Borga one comes from Borga himself. He bragged about it to a reader of mine for an interview in Finland, and the info was sent to me as an interesting tibdit to come out of the interview. The Luger "New York Post" story is a fairly famous wrestling urban myth which pretty much everyone on the internet took as gospel in the days before Meltzer came online. It was indeed pretty firmly debunked a couple of years back. 3. The Diesel-Shawn rumor stemmed from RSPW back in the day. I always thought it had merit, but I guess not. 4. The Mankind-Shawn match caused a lot of raised eyebrows back in 96 online because of Shawn's worked hissy fit, plus the weak ending and Jim Ross's boo-boo where he seemed to indicate that it would be a title change by hyping the Undertaker-Mankind match the next month as "non-title". All that, to me, has always backed up the changed finish story, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Again, much of the info swapped on the 'net in the pre-Meltzer era was third-hand info from hotlines that just ripped off the WON or the Torch, so YMMV.

This is just my opinion on the subject. If I had my way, anyone who makes money off of a tragedy (especially one that isn't even a year old yet), should have to give a portion of it back. That doesn't make any sense. What defines a tragedy, what would be the grace period be for this tragedy? If I write about a tragedy 300 years ago, am I required to give money there? Why should a writer be punished for wanting to write about something, even if it's about something sad.

Haha, West Coast mods. I'm glad the new administration wants that setup, I still don't agree with CWM and Danny Dubya at all. I'm just posting my dislike about it and responding to those who respond to me. Fine, then what is it that all 11 mods will be doing? As I said, I think 11 mods is a bit much, and I don't agree with naming someone a mod because they participate in an AIM chat

Yes. Still don't have RAW either.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030413203243/...ideos/rants.php

A gossip columnist did write something in the paper about Luger winning the title, but he was never going to win it

Who are they supposed to appeal to though? If you're just a fan of the WWE, the second and third books are just pages and pages of how much the WWE sucks and how evil HHH is. If you're more smartened up, you pretty much know every thing he's saying.

Steve Austin was supposed to win the World Title at Final Four before injuring his knee in the match. I remember he was ripped apart in one of his books for messing up history of the NWA Title, and he didn't seem to care. I think his FAQ also had the Luger leaking the finish rumour, that has since been debunked. Ludvig was supposed to win this match, using it as a stepping stone to the World title a couple of weeks after, then losing it to Lex Luger at Wrestlemania X. (I believe this is also untrue) There are others, I'm trying to remember them.

I enjoy the fact that his rants are good reference points for PPVs, but I was bothered when I found out that his books and reviews were filled with a lot of errors and half-truths

This is the best question so far. Yes, all true crime writers are obligated to do this. Seriously, that's not a legitimate question, and there's far more valid stuff to ask about even if you're just looking to be inflammatory. The point is not that he's not writing a book about a horrible crime, but it's that the only thing that seems to make him qualified to do so is the fact that he liked Benoit. I liked Benoit too.

How is format going to work? He answers the questions, and we discuss his answers?